Dogs Trust welcomes microchipping rules

Sarah De Cesare

Mar 11th 2011, 15:07

No-one is going to guarantee a negative. The numbers implanted in the UK are since 1996. Even if the incidence was under-reported by a factor of 100, it would still not be large enough to show a causal connection.

We only know of one reputable peer reviewed study. There may be others but we cannot guarantee their quality.

As regards Ryan Falzon's comments - The dog would not be put under general aenesthetic. This is a two second procedure, similar to having a ear pierced. The chip is only the size of a rice grain and is simply placed under the skin.
A tag is not sufficient. Information could be false and can be easily removed, and many do not bother even using one. all dog owners are encouraged to use a tag all the same.
The cost is only €10 for neutered dogs and €20 for unneutered. This is actually cheaper than some vets charge already. Dogs Trust offer free microchipping and neutering to people who cannot afford to do it or wouldn't normally. Education goes hand in hand with this and we have free workshops in schools which provide info on all the basic needs of pets.

A. Fernandez

Mar 11th 2011, 18:47

So if no one is giving any guarantees that there are no health risks involved for the animals, you are admitting that the implantation of chips does pose a potential threat.

Sarah De Cesare

Mar 11th 2011, 19:08

Hardly. We are saying that out of millions of dogs chipped in the last 15 years, only a handful have been reported to have developed certain cancers which makes it extremely likely that the cancer cells happened to be present at the site of insertion before the insertion itself actually took place.

A. Fernandez

Mar 14th 2011, 15:39

After some research, I found that the BSAVA (British Small Animal Veterinary Association) has logged more adverse reactions (tumours are not the only potential problems). Quote from their 2003 report: "It is significant that several reports were received from some quite small practices while many larger practices filed no reports at all. This suggests that there is an element of under reporting which may be happening for a variety of reasons. " I also found that Dogs Trust campaigned for compulsory micro-chipping in the UK and makes a substantial profit form the practice. So I now understand why you defend micro-chipping and downplay potential hazards.

Sarah De Cesare

Mar 15th 2011, 16:54

Dogs Trust makes no profit whatsoever on microchipping. In fact, the charity pays the veterinary practices to have it done! I'm not sure where you received this information, however I can assure you it is not the case. The charity is a non-profit organisation based solely on donations from the public. The money raised is used to help educate and provide services for the public. This includes us paying for procedures at the vet practices.
I'd be happy to give you the correct information and would invite you to phone in at the office any time to discuss further.

C Cassar

Mar 10th 2011, 22:13

It costs less than the existing annual registration, so it's saving you money. Read the article, you're going to be 'taxed' less with the new scheme.

You do of course register your dog each year since it's the law?

S. Pace

Mar 10th 2011, 16:55

OK then.... so what is your alternative?

Do you prefer a status quo and let them some owners continue to do as they please? That is, leave their dogs roaming about without supervision or when fed up with their pets they just dump them on the streets?

In my view this is the only way to catch the culprits and restrain certain abuses. This is the way to enforce discipline and make certain owners accountable for their actions. We need to start from somewhere, somehow, otherwise we'll continue to live in a banana republic.

Sarah De Cesare

Mar 10th 2011, 16:22

In the UK we keep adverse reaction data on microchips and the country has had only 4 reports of tumours at the microchip site. This number if out of a total of 4-5 million chips implanted in pets. ... Because of the very low incidence it is likely that the chip just happened to be at the tumour site rather than causing the tumour.

Even if the number of reported adverse reactions is underestimated by a factor of ten, the proportion is miniscule.

We are aware of a paper highlighting apparent tumour causation in a group of rats in an experimental establishment. But that is a single report and very many laboratory animals are chipped to ensure traceability. There have not been other reports and so it seems to have been a one-off. It is more likely that the rats were bred to show tumours.

Sarah De Cesare

Mar 10th 2011, 16:23

Some benefits of microchipping include -

Improving the welfare of dogs.
Improving the proportion of straying dogs that are returned to their owners as a result of being microchipped.
Helping to reunite lost pets with their owners.
If a dog is taken abroad it has got to be microchipped to verify its documentation on rabies immunity and tick and tapeworm treatment.
Welfare issues: cruelty, fighting, dog fouling - if a particular dog can be identified to their owner then the owner can be tracked down and dealt with.
Dog breeding - the integrity of all the genetic tests that are done is completely valueless unless the animal can be identified. It is an essential part of integrity for the whole dog breeding debate.
Microchipping is part of being a responsible owner.
Allow the tracing of puppies to irresponsible breeders such as puppy farms

Sarah De Cesare

Mar 10th 2011, 16:26

Regarding tattooing - it fades, is often covered by hair and most of the time unreadable. If all the dogs have the same tattoo, I.E. street dogs or something else, it can work, but to see different letters or numbers can be very very hard. Ears can also be cut off, as we see in dumped ex racing greyhounds in the UK.
Also, there is no guarantee of a unique number from a tattoo. Different countries issue their own numbers so even with alphanumeric combinations there may be duplicates. Microchips that comply with the ISO standard are guaranteed a unique number as part of the system.

Mike Orland

Mar 10th 2011, 17:40

What is this thing about tumours??

the practice of having horses chipped has been in practice for years now in France and I never heard of any cases of tumors due to this practice. Even in Malta, horses are starting to be chipped.

On the other hand countries like sweden and other scandinavian countries are starting to apply microchipps along with the usual freezemark they use normally.

Ryan Falzon

Mar 11th 2011, 03:20

the intention is genuine. the idea is not practical. but what matters the most is thats it is going to generate income. whether this micro chipping causes tumors or not, it is still a foreign body inserted in my dog's back. i am not happy to do it especially if i had an old dog which can be killed under ga. why is something so simple as a name tag not sufficient? do we seriously think that abusers are going to abandon a dog with a microchip? they will dig in and have it removed or just kill the dog! this is not to mention all the dogs that are going to be abandoned because owners would not care to pay a cent for the chip. it is a pity that we speak about animal welfare to the extent that it is going to benefit the human. is it just neutering and registering pets thats important? for instance why cant we talk about what a 'quality' pet food is made of and why a veterinarian does recommend it? the list is never ending.